Rural Homelessness Study Prepared for the County of Wellington Authors: Eden Grodzinski, Rebecca Sutherns, Jane Londerville, and Craig Bentham September 2011
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
2
KEY FINDINGS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The magnitude of the homelessness problem is a heavily contested issue. Rural
homelessness, perhaps even more so than urban, is tough to quantify and measure
The majority of so-called “homeless” individuals who were interviewed for this study
were very reluctant to self-identify as being homeless, even if they were living in a car or
couch surfing. Perhaps this is due to the stigma and stereotypes that accompany this
designation, but most likely it is because they simply do not perceive themselves as such.
Rural residents are reluctant to access emergency shelters in the city. At present, 5-6%
of Guelph’s shelter users come from the County.
Rural homelessness is largely hidden/concealed. People prefer to couch surf, stay in
uninhabited shelters (e.g. sheds, cars, tents), or return to their family homes and what
are often unsafe conditions.
Poverty and substance abuse now trump mental health as leading causes/triggers of
homelessness, particularly for youth.
The rural context presents issues that differentiate the rural homeless experience from
more urban settings. For example:
o There is a lack of infrastructure, such as emergency shelters, drop-in centres and
public transportation.
o Many essential services (that do exist) are located in large urban centres. Clients
are required to travel long distances to access these services in person.
o Travel time and distances, combined with a lack of public transportation and
winter road conditions, make it extremely difficult for individuals to attend
appointments, food shop, and go to the laundromat.
o The close-knit nature of rural communities, which in some cases marginalizes
homeless people in part by making their presence more overt, can also have
positive implications. For many individuals, rural ties and friendships are the
greatest deterrents to leaving, especially for youth.
o There is limited affordable rental housing. And while rental rates may be cheaper
than in urban areas, other costs of daily living (e.g. food and transportation) tend
to be more expensive.
o There is a lack of appropriate social housing, especially family sized units. Much
of the existing stock is designed for seniors.
o Many individuals are reluctant to recognize the existence of homelessness in
their communities, thereby impeding the funding and development of
mechanisms that are truly supportive.
Overall, it appears that homelessness is a challenge, but not a priority issue in the
community. More concerning is that the triggers that lead to homelessness - poverty,
substance abuse, lack of well-paying jobs, lack of affordable/suitable rental housing – are
on the rise.
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report has been prepared for the County of Wellington’s Social Services department, to
use in planning effective, sustainable solutions to address the homeless population living in East,
Centre and North Wellington.
In order to ensure that the ultimate goal of this project – to understand the make-up and needs
of the homeless population of Wellington County – was kept at the fore throughout, the
primary research method involved consultations with individuals who are (or have been)
homeless or who are precariously housed, as well as local service providers. Five group
discussions and numerous interviews were held, reaching a total of 78 participants, consisting of
49 service providers (representing 34 organizations) and 29 service users. This information was
supplemented by a review of relevant literature (both Canadian and international), and an indepth analysis of existing program and socio-economic data related to homelessness in
Wellington County.
What “homeless” means
The term “homeless” used in this study encompasses the following three meanings:
•
•
•
Absolute - living on the street or in emergency shelters
Hidden or concealed - living with friends or family, in a car, in a long-term institution
Relative - living in sub-standard conditions or at-risk of losing their homes (i.e. living in
“core housing need”)
However, the authors note caution when applying this term to individuals, as many of the socalled “homeless” who were interviewed for this study do not feel this label applies to them.
The rural context
It is important to recognize that the rural context presents issues that differentiate the rural
homeless experience from urban settings. For example, the close-knit nature of rural
communities, which in some cases marginalizes homeless people in part by making their
presence more overt, can also have positive implications. For many individuals, rural ties and
friendships are the greatest deterrents to leaving, especially for youth.
There is a stereotype that homeless people migrate to rural areas for cheaper housing. The
reality is that there is a lack of affordable rental housing options in rural communities. And
while rental rates may be cheaper than in urban areas, other costs of daily living (e.g. food and
transportation) tend to be more expensive.
In rural areas, transportation is a vital issue. Due to distances, winter weather, and the lack of
public transportation, getting to work, going food shopping or to the laundromat, and accessing
social services is extremely challenging. For the most part, taxi services are not available, and
where they do exist, they tend to be limited and prohibitively expensive for individuals with a
limited income. In response to this issue, a collaborative of local community service providers
established the Wellington Transportation Services a few years ago. This volunteer driver
program is managed by Community Resource Centre and funded by the County of Wellington.
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
4
Although this service is vital in helping residents to access necessary medical, social and legal
appointments and services, services, it is not a panacea. The program is fully reliant on the
recruitment and availability of volunteer drivers. And due to liability issues, volunteer drivers
are not permitted to transport youth without a legal guardian present.
How many people are homeless?
It is impossible to give an accurate count of the number of homeless individuals in Wellington
County, and there was little consensus from local service providers on the trends anecdotally.
At present, data on Wellington residents’ usage of emergency shelters in Ontario is only
available for Guelph. An analysis of the County of Wellington’s Homeless Individuals and
Families Information System (HIFIS) data reveals that 72 households/individuals (including 20
dependents) from Wellington County visited the emergency shelters located in Guelph
between January 2009 and December 2010. Several of those shelter users stayed multiple
times. This represents 5-6% of all Guelph’s shelter users.
The low usage rate of Guelph’s shelters by Wellington residents is not surprising given the
research regarding rural life and social connections. Rural residents report strong friendships
and ties to their communities, and consider cities to be unsafe and overwhelming. For
individuals and families who have local support networks and jobs being transported to an
urban centre for shelter and support services is not an ideal solution. This is especially true if
children, youth and schooling are involved. Of those that do leave, the majority report the need
for a “fresh start”, or are purposely moving away from unhealthy domestic situations, and as a
result, are willing to relocate.
Overall, it appears that homelessness is a challenge, but not a priority issue in the community.
More concerning is that the triggers that lead to homelessness - poverty, substance abuse, lack
of well-paying jobs, lack of affordable/suitable rental housing, long waiting lists for social housing
– are on the rise.
Why are they homeless?
Poverty and substance abuse now trump mental health as leading causes/triggers of
homelessness, particularly for young people. The most common causes of poverty mentioned
during this study were: lack of employment, inadequate social assistance rates, low paying jobs
and the expense of raising children as a lone parent. Job losses were noted as being particularly
evident within the past year, coinciding with the economic downturn in manufacturing which is
an important component of the economy of Wellington County and surrounding areas. On
more than one occasion, the current income support system was described as “setting people
up to fail.”
Another significant contributing factor to homelessness is relational strife, including abuse and
family breakdown. Many of the young people who participated in this study do not live at home
because of a history of trauma, conflict and instability there, which leaves them vulnerable to
poverty, homelessness and many other risks.
There is a great stigma attached to homelessness and poverty. Homeless youth, in particular,
described feeling judged by their peers, by workers in the system, by prospective employers
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
5
and by landlords refusing to rent to them. Some are, and most are perceived as being, involved
in illegal activities. One service provider noted that even people who live in social housing judge
people who live in social housing. As a result, this population is not considered highly
employable or desirable as tenants or legal witnesses. They are vulnerable to harassment and
exploitation. Stories of being bullied across all age groups were common.
How do they cope?
In general, homeless people are extremely resourceful. They use informal, creative strategies to
solve problems and meet basic needs. In terms of finding shelter, the main theme is transience.
People are on the move a lot. They couch surf, stay in uninhabited shelters (e.g. sheds, cars,
tents), or return to their family homes and what are often unsafe conditions.
Those with housing struggle with which bills to pay each month because not all basic needs can
be covered with the funds available. This choice is usually made based on which creditor is
complaining the loudest at any given time. When they have access to credit, people are
accumulating significant debt.
Regardless of the coping strategy, there is a strong preference for staying local and “making
do”.
What would help?
Some simple bureaucratic/administrative changes could make a difference in addressing not only
homelessness, but also the social inequities that underlie it. It is recommended that the County
of Wellington:
1. Improve the equity between Guelph and Wellington County, by offering more local
“homeless and eviction prevention” services in rural areas
2. Promote practices that make the Employment & Income Support Program more userfriendly and welcoming
3. Work with local youth service providers to provide youth with safe shelter alternatives,
as well as opportunities to play and learn life skills
4. Adopt a Housing First Policy
In summary, this report paints a picture of homelessness in Wellington County, by synthesizing
large amounts of existing data and combining it with the lived experiences of precariously
housed individuals and the service providers who work with them. It is a canvas marked with
poverty, addiction, family breakdown and mental illness. Yet it is also characterized by
resourcefulness, and a strong commitment to home and to place, even by those deemed not to
have a home.
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................6
1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................8
1.1 Background (The Setting).......................................................................................8
1.2 Purpose .....................................................................................................................8
1.3 Methodology .............................................................................................................9
2. THE TERM “HOMELESS” ...........................................................................................9
2.1Defining Homelessness.............................................................................................9
2.2 Measurement Challenges ......................................................................................10
3. SETTING THE CONTEXT - HOMELESSNESS & RURAL LIFE ...........................11
3.1 What Rural Means .................................................................................................11
3.2 Social Connections ................................................................................................11
3.3 The Rural Economy & Affordable Housing .........................................................12
3.4 Transportation .......................................................................................................12
3.5 Lack of Social Services & Infrastructure .............................................................13
4. THE EXTENT OF HOMELESSNESS IN WELLINGTON COUNTY ...................13
4.1 Emergency Shelter Usage .....................................................................................13
4.2 Households at Risk .................................................................................................14
4.3 Emergency Rent Bank Usage ...............................................................................15
5. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO HOMELESSNESS IN WELLINGTON
COUNTY ..........................................................................................................................16
5.1 Poverty ....................................................................................................................16
5.2 Unemployment ......................................................................................................17
5.3 Inadequate Income Support Levels .....................................................................18
5.4 Lack of Affordable Rental Housing ......................................................................18
5.5 Waiting Lists for Social Housing ..........................................................................19
5.6 Food .........................................................................................................................20
6. UNDERSTANDING THE HOMELESS EXPERIENCE IN WELLINGTON
COUNTY ..........................................................................................................................21
6.1 Why are they homeless? .......................................................................................21
6.2 How they describe their experiences ..................................................................22
6.3 Who is at highest risk?...........................................................................................23
6.4 Is homelessness a significant issue in Wellington County? ................................24
6.5 What services are available to help? ....................................................................24
6.6 What are the barriers? ..........................................................................................25
6.6 How do people cope? .............................................................................................26
7. RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................................28
8. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................32
APPENDIX A - WORKS CITED ....................................................................................33
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
7
APPENDIX B – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..........................................................36
1. Focus Groups & Key Informant Interviews ...........................................................36
2. Literature Review ....................................................................................................37
3. Statistical Analysis ...................................................................................................37
APPENDIX C – PARTICIPANTS ..................................................................................39
Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................39
Service Providers .........................................................................................................39
Community Members .................................................................................................41
APPENDIX D – PROFILE OF WELLINGTON SHELTER USERS ............................42
APPENDIX E – HOMELESS & EVICTION PREVENTION PROGRAMS FUNDED
BY THE COUNTY OF WELLINGTON, 2010 .............................................................46
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
8
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background (The Setting)
Wellington County is a picturesque region located in south-western Ontario, encompassing
several villages, hamlets and a large amount of agricultural land. A distinguishing feature of the
region is the Grand River watershed, which offers extensive camping and conservation areas.
The County (excluding Guelph) covers a large landmass, of 2,570 square kilometers [1]. In
other words, it takes approximately two hours to travel by car from one end of the region to
the other.
According to 2009 population estimates there
are 91,290 people living in Wellington County
[2]. Due to a variety of social and economic
factors, some townships are experiencing
significant growth (Puslinch) while other areas
are seeing declines in population (Wellington
North) [3]. The median age (38.8 in 2006) for
Wellington County (including Guelph) is slightly
less than for the province as a whole (39.9), but
like the rest of Canada the population is aging
[4].
Local Government
The County of Wellington is an upper-tier municipality comprised of seven members: Centre
Wellington, Erin, Guelph/Eramosa, Mapleton, Minto, Puslinch, and Wellington North. (The City
of Guelph is a separated municipality.)
The County of Wellington is the designated Consolidated Municipal Service Manager (CMSM).
As such, the County of Wellington is responsible for delivering Social Services (i.e. social
housing, social assistance and childcare) for both Wellington and Guelph. These responsibilities
include homelessness and eviction prevention, which involves administering the following
programs:
•
•
•
•
•
Domiciliary Hostels (e.g. Retirement Homes, Youth Residential Facilities)
Transient Hostel Programme (e.g. Emergency Shelters)
Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP)
Provincial Rent Bank
Emergency Energy Fund
The administration centre for these services is located in Guelph.
1.2 Purpose
Despite various research studies on homelessness in urban areas, information on rural
homelessness in Canada is scarce. Consequently there is a lack of knowledge about the
homeless population in rural areas like Wellington County – Who are they? How many are
there? How are they coping? What would help them?
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
9
In recent years, concerns about homelessness have been raised in various pockets of
Wellington County. In the summer of 2008, for example, a group of homeless youth were living
under a bridge in Fergus. Citizens were looking to the County of Wellington for solutions.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the make-up and needs of the homeless population
living in East, Centre and North Wellington. This report has been prepared for the County of
Wellington’s Social Services department, to use in planning effective, sustainable solutions for
the homeless residents of Wellington County.1
1.3 Methodology
In August 2010, JPMC Services Inc. was retained by the County of Wellington to research and
assess the need for services to address the homeless population of Wellington County.
In order to ensure that the ultimate goal of this project – to understand the make-up and needs
of the homeless population of Wellington County – was kept at the fore throughout, the
primary research method involved consultations with individuals who are (or have been)
homeless or who are precariously housed, as well as local service providers. Five group
discussions and numerous interviews were held, reaching a total of 78 participants, consisting of
49 service providers (representing 34 organizations) and 29 service users.
The information obtained through the above-mentioned interviews and focus groups was then
supplemented by a review of relevant literature (both Canadian and international), and an indepth analysis of existing program and socio-economic data related to homelessness in
Wellington County.
For detailed information on the methodology, including a list of participants, interview
questions, and bibliography, please refer to Appendices A-C.
2. THE TERM “HOMELESS”
2.1Defining Homelessness
The majority of so-called “homeless” individuals who were interviewed for
this study were very reluctant to self-identify as being homeless, even if they
were couch surfing or living in a car. Perhaps this is due to the stigma and
stereotypes that accompany this designation, but most likely it is because
they simply do not perceive themselves as such.
As one youth remarked, “I have a home, but I cannot live there.”
1
The County of Wellington is concurrently in the process of updating its Affordable Housing Strategy. This
strategy focuses on preserving and increasing the supply of affordable rental and social housing units in Guelph and
Wellington County. It is anticipated that the housing report will contain information and recommendations that
are relevant to the rural homeless population discussed here.
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
10
The very term “homeless” is a heavily contested issue. In urban centres, homelessness can be
found, literally, on your doorstep. For example, images of a homeless person in a shop
doorway, sleeping over a sewer grate, or occupying a park bench immediately come to mind.
This type of homelessness is often referred to as “absolute”, and embodies the mainstream,
stereotypical image of homelessness in Canada.
For this study, it was essential to seek a definition of homelessness that extends beyond
“rooflessness” [5]. Not only does equating homelessness simply with rooflessness skew the
data, it ignores the struggles that individuals and families living in precarious housing situations
face [6].
The Canadian federal government currently defines homelessness in three terms [7]:
•
•
•
Absolute - living on the street or in emergency shelters
Hidden or concealed - living with friends or family, in a car, in a long-term institution
Relative - living in sub-standard conditions or at-risk of losing their homes (i.e. living in
“core housing need”2)
Absolute homelessness is merely the “tip of the iceberg” [8]. The terms “hidden” and “relative”
recognize that homelessness is equally rife with: insecurity; having little choice about where one
calls home; being forced to live on the move, or in unsafe and overcrowded conditions; being
restricted about what you can take with you; and living day-to-day without a general sense of
belonging.
The term “homeless” used in this study encompasses all three of the above definitions –
absolute, hidden and relative. However, the authors note caution when applying this term to
individuals, as many of the so-called “homeless” who were interviewed for this study do not
feel this label applies to them.
2.2 Measurement Challenges
The majority of international research relating to homelessness has taken place in large
metropolitan centres [9]. In fact, a recent study on Canadian youth homelessness based its
research and statistical investigations in major urban hubs, those being Calgary, Toronto and St.
John’s [10]. Rural locations are generally excluded from discussions of homelessness. Although
international studies have emerged which attempt to paint a picture of rural homelessness, such
as a recent American report that estimates their national homeless population to be 7 percent
rural [11], widespread methodological inconsistencies in physically quantifying rural
homelessness renders such figures basically useless.
2
A household is in core housing need if its housing does not meet one or more standards for housing adequacy
(repair), suitability (crowding), or affordability and if it would have to spend 30 per cent or more of its before-tax
income to pay the median rent (including utilities) of appropriately sized alternative local market housing [6].
11
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
“In urban areas, estimates have commonly relied on
counts of persons using services. However, by this
measure, homeless persons in rural areas are likely
substantially undercounted due to the lack of rural
service sites, the difficulty capturing persons who do
not use homeless services, the limited number of
researchers working in rural communities, and the
minimal incentive for rural providers to collect data
on their clients.” [12]
Different counting mechanisms
across social agencies have also
been shown to impede the ability to
track, compare, and reach an
accurate number of rural individuals
in a state of homelessness. The
homeless experience is often
intermittent, meaning that
identifying and counting these
individuals is nearly impossible [13].
3. SETTING THE CONTEXT - HOMELESSNESS & RURAL LIFE
The Canadian rural landscape is full of images that conjure up feelings of comfort, serenity,
peacefulness and tranquility. This rural idyll promises an escape from the everyday hustle and
bustle of city life, where friendly, familiar faces abound, and separation from urban troubles is
celebrated. Nonetheless, rural communities are filled with the same “blemishes” as urban places
- pollution, drug use, unemployment and homelessness. And despite its supposedly “invisible”
nature [14, 15], homelessness continues to rise in rural areas at a faster rate than that found
within urban centres [16]. In fact, a study by the Canadian Mental Health Association found that
rural and urban homelessness are fundamentally linked in that over half of the homeless people
who end up in large cities come from a small town or rural community [17].
It is important to recognize that the rural context presents issues that differentiate the
homeless experience from urban settings. The following section provides a brief overview of
current research and knowledge relating to rural homelessness, in the hope that it will enhance
understanding of homelessness in rural Wellington.
3.1 What Rural Means
When examining issues facing rural communities, it is important to define what the term “rural”
means. The difficulty is that even trusted and often-referenced sources paint a generic and
sweeping picture of rural life. Take the latest classification by Statistics Canada, for example:
rural residents are defined as those “persons living in sparsely populated lands lying outside
urban areas”; or, “living outside places of 1,000 people or more, or outside places with
population densities of 400 or more people per square kilometre” [18]. Essentially, what
Statistics Canada suggests is that rural is simply a lack of urban-ness. Critics warn that such
generalizations are problematic, and that rural communities differ markedly from one another,
in terms of community characteristics, geographies and resources [19, 20]. Rurality is as much a
cultural and relational term as well as a geographical one.
3.2 Social Connections
The close-knit nature of rural communities, which in some cases marginalizes homeless people
in part by making their presence more overt, can also have positive implications. For many
individuals, rural ties and friendships, even those that seem superficial, are the greatest
deterrents to leaving, especially for youth [21, 22]. Additionally, many individuals express strong
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
12
attachments to their rural communities, due to an ease and familiarity with the environment,
whereas urban centers can appear dangerous, alienating, and overwhelming [23].
In supportive communities, residents watch out and help one another (e.g. delivering food to a
senior living in an isolated farmhouse, letting someone sleep in their barn or shed, etc.). The
positive outcome of this caring is that rural homeless people are more likely to foster lifelong
relationships with local service providers and other concerned members of the community
[24]. Neighbourly help, however, can be a mixed blessing, if it
inadvertently perpetuates the cycle of homelessness (i.e.
pretending there is no problem, lack of timely referrals to
“A defining aspect of rural
homelessness is having
appropriate mental health care, etc.) or is perceived as
your problems on display
judgmental and meddling. The lack of anonymity may mean that
to everyone, open for
no one slips through the cracks, but it can also mean that there
judgement.” [25]
are no private spaces where those at risk can safely find help.
Rural communities also tend to be quite conservative, and
marginalized people describe a very fine line between being
cared for versus feeling blamed.
3.3 The Rural Economy & Affordable Housing
Increased global trade and competition with international markets has meant that the influence
and demand for goods produced in Canada’s rural communities has declined in recent years
[26]. This weakened economy is compounded by the fact that most rural communities in
Ontario rank lower than their urban counterparts with regards to employment and education
rates [27].
There is a stereotype that homeless people migrate to rural areas for cheaper housing. As a
result of this impression, homeless people are often blamed for bringing negative and anti-social
behaviour to the community [28]. The reality is that there is a lack of affordable rental housing
options in rural communities. Rural gentrification and the cost of new construction3 negatively
impact the affordable housing market, making housing inaccessible to low-income individuals.
The rental housing that is available is often second-rate, unsafe and overcrowded [29, 30]. And
while rental rates may be cheaper than in urban areas, other costs of daily living (e.g. food and
transportation) tend to be more expensive.
3.4 Transportation
In rural areas, transportation is a vital issue. Due to distances, winter weather, and the lack of
public transportation, getting to work, going food shopping or to the laundromat, and accessing
social services is extremely challenging. For the most part, taxi services are not available, and
where they do exist, they tend to be limited and prohibitively expensive for individuals with a
limited income.
3
The cost of new rental construction is increased by factors such as the price of land and septic system
requirements. As a result, the economic rent landlords need to charge to cover the cost of new construction and
operating costs is far greater than market rent in most urban areas in Ontario.
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
13
3.5 Lack of Social Services & Infrastructure
There is an obvious connection between rural homelessness and the lack of services and
infrastructure. In rural communities, low population levels means that it is not financially
sustainable to open an emergency shelter, for example. A common solution is to transport
those needing shelter to a larger centre. For individuals and families who have local support
networks, jobs and school-aged children being transported to an urban centre for shelter is far
from optimal.
Despite the prevalence of homelessness in rural areas, many communities are reluctant to
acknowledge its existence, thus impeding the development and funding of support services.
Where social services do exist, they tend to be underfunded and their staffs are stretched to
the limit, serving wide catchment areas while dealing with “hard-to-serve” clients and
challenging issues. As a result, staff burnout and turnover is high, leading to less trust and
familiarity between clients and staff [31, 32]. In addition, there tends to be less collaboration
among service providers, as they are often working alone and have fewer opportunities to
congregate than their urban counterparts. Isolation, of clients and service providers, is a very
real risk in rural regions.
4. THE EXTENT OF HOMELESSNESS IN WELLINGTON COUNTY
As previously discussed, it is impossible to give an accurate count of the number of homeless
individuals in Wellington County. What is quantifiable, however, are the number of people
accessing emergency shelter services, and the number of households living in precarious
housing situations. The following section explores available service utilization and core housing
need data. This information helps to paint a picture of who are the homeless and the scope of
the problem. The caveat is that many individuals do not access social services. For a variety of
reasons (which are explored in subsequent sections of this paper), they live “under the radar”
(e.g. couch surfing, camping, sleeping in cars and abandoned sheds) and are therefore not
represented in the numbers below.
4.1 Emergency Shelter Usage
“Absolute” homelessness is often measured in terms of shelter bed usage. At present, there are
no emergency shelter beds located in Wellington County. The exception is a transitional hostel
located in Mount Forest, which serves young women who are pregnant or parenting a child
under the age of one year. Consequently, anyone in need of shelter services must travel outside
of the region to Guelph, Orangeville, Kitchener-Waterloo or Owen Sound.
At present, data on Wellington residents’ usage of emergency shelters is only available for
Guelph. An analysis of the County of Wellington’s Homeless Individuals and Families
Information System (HIFIS) data reveals that 72 households/individuals (including 20
dependents) from Wellington County visited the emergency shelters located in Guelph
between January 2009 and December 2010 – 54 to the adult shelters and 20 to the youth
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
14
shelter.4 (This does not include users of the women’s shelter.5) Some of these
households/individuals stayed multiple times. Overall, Wellington residents make up 5-6% of the
clients staying in Guelph’s shelter system.
The low usage rate of Guelph’s shelters by Wellington residents is not surprising given the
research regarding social connections cited above. Rural residents report strong friendships and
ties to their communities, and consider cities to be unsafe and overwhelming. Most people will
choose to stay in untenable situations in order to remain close to their social support
networks. This is especially true if children, youth and schooling are involved. Of those that do
leave, the majority report the need for a “fresh start”, or are purposely moving away from
unhealthy domestic situations, and as a result, are willing to relocate.
For more details on the profile of Wellington shelter users (e.g. monthly trends, age and gender
profile, length of stay, and reasons for admission) including limitations of the HIFIS data, please
refer to Appendix D.
4.2 Households at Risk
Households “at risk” of homelessness are generally considered to be those in core housing
need. Households are considered in core housing need if they pay more than 30% of their
income for housing, or if the housing is inadequate (poorly maintained) or unsuitable (too small
for the family size). Renters tend to be at higher risk of being precariously housed than
homeowners.
According to the 2006 Census, there were a total of 27,880 households in Wellington County
(excluding Guelph); 14.9% (4,155) of which were renters. Of the renter households, 23.5%
(975) were living in core housing need in 2006 (see table 1), with rates varying substantially
among the towns, from a low of under 25 renter households in Mapleton to a high of 460
renter households (31.4%) in Centre Wellington.
4
“Wellington County” clients are those that report a prior address in Wellington County during the 12 months
prior to admission to a shelter, and are identified as such by the Shelter Intake Workers. In some cases an
additional code of “no fixed address (NFA)” was used. Because this was not used at all times in all shelters, these
percentages are of total shelter users excluding those coded as NFA. For details on the data methodology and
limitations, refer to Appendix D.
5
These figures are based on data provided by Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis, and are for 2009 only.
Women’s shelters track and report statistics differently than emergency shelters, due to funding and reporting
relationships (i.e. the emergency shelters receive per diems from the County of Wellington; whereas Marianne’s
Place receives funding from the provincial government).
15
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
Table 1 -­‐ Percentage of Renter Households in Core Housing Need in Wellington County, 2001 and 2006 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 2006 10% 2001 5% 0% Source: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, special tabulation
4.3 Emergency Rent Bank Usage
50 Table 2 -­‐ Households assisted by Community Resource Centre's Emergency Rent Bank, 2009-­‐2010 40 30 20 10 0 # of households at imminent risk of homelessness # of households at risk of homelessness # of households living on street Source: Community Resource Centre
In 2009-2010, a total of 242 Wellington households accessed the Emergency Rent/Utility Bank
operated by the Community Resource Centre (CRC). This program is instrumental in helping
people to maintain their home through their financial crisis. It provides to $325 in emergency
16
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
funds to help low-income households who cannot pay their monthly rent or are in danger of
having utilities cut off. As Table 2 illustrates, the usage rate varies by month, due to both
demand and the availability of funds (i.e. CRC was only able to assist two families in the last
quarter of 2009 due to restricted funding).
5. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO HOMELESSNESS IN
WELLINGTON COUNTY
Only by understanding the reasons behind a problem can relevant solutions be developed. This
section explores the socio-economic factors behind homelessness in Wellington County, taking
into consideration both the quantitative and qualitative data gathered in this study. These
factors – poverty, unemployment, insufficient income support levels, lack of affordable housing,
long waiting lists for social housing, and rising food costs - are numerous, complicated and
mutually reinforcing. While that observation may seem self-evident, it illustrates the complexity
of solving the homelessness problem.
5.1 Poverty
Table 3 -­‐ Poverty Rates in Guelph & Wellington based on the Low Income Cut-­‐off Measure (LICO), 2005 12% 10% 8% Pre-­‐tax 6% AEer-­‐tax 4% 2% 0% Overall Child Elderly Source: Guelph Community Foundation [33]
According to the before-tax Low Income Cut-Off Measure (LICO), 8.7% of households living in
Wellington County (including Guelph) are living in poverty – struggling to choose between
paying their rent or other basic necessities like food, clothing and transportation [34]. It should
be noted that this figure was calculated from the 2006 Census, and does not take into account
the fallout from the recent economic downturn. The current proportion of people living in
poverty in Wellington County is likely greater than what is reported in Table 3. What is
important to note, however, is that children (many of whom are undoubtedly living in single
parent families) are more likely than seniors and the general population to be living in poverty.
17
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
Poverty is caused by numerous factors, many of which are described in more detail below. The
ones most often mentioned during this study were: lack of employment, inadequate social
assistance levels, low paying jobs and the expense of raising children as a lone parent. Job losses
were noted as being particularly evident within the past year, coinciding with the economic
downturn in manufacturing which is an important component of the economy of Wellington
County and surrounding areas. Some service providers noted that poor budgeting and money
management skills exacerbate the problem.
5.2 Unemployment
Table 4 -­‐ Total Number of Employment Insurance Beneficiaries in Wellington County (including Guelph), June 2008 -­‐ June 2010 9000 Number of EI Beneficiaries 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Source: County of Wellington
As indicated above, Wellington County has been hard hit by the recent recession. For some
time before the middle of 2008 the area unemployment rate was lower than that for the
province. But during 2008 and 2009 the unemployment rate in Guelph6 was higher than the
province’s. Table 4 shows the more than doubling of Employment Insurance (EI) cases in
Wellington County between July 2008 and March 2009. Cases have dropped since then, partly
as a result of creation of jobs in the county but also because the benefits have run out for many
recipients. It is likely many of these households are now on Ontario Works (OW). As Table 5
illustrates, the caseloads for OW have increased steadily during this same time period.
6
Unemployment rates for Wellington County are not available but are considered to move in the general
direction as Guelph’s.
18
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
1600 1400 1200 1000 800 City of Guelph Caseload 600 400 County of Wellington Caseload July 2010 April 2010 January 2010 October 2009 July 2009 April 2009 January 2009 October 2008 July 2008 April 2008 January 2008 October 2007 July 2007 0 April 2007 200 January 2007 Number of Ontario Works Cases Table 5 -­‐ Total Number of Ontario Works Caseloads in Wellington County, January 2007 -­‐ May 2010 Source: County of Wellington
5.3 Inadequate Income Support Levels
Because it was raised so often during the consultation process of this study, it is important to
pause here to explain how the income support programs that are designed to help people - EI,
OW, Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), – often have the unintended consequences
of keeping people in poverty, and therefore at risk of homelessness. On more than one
occasion, OW was described as “setting people up to fail.”
Table 6 - Rental Rates in Wellington County in comparison to Social Assistance Rates
Family
Ontario Works Maximum Shelter
Average Annual Market Rent in
Shortfall in Shelter
Size
Allowance (December 2010)
Wellington (Fall 2009)
Allowance
1
2
3
4
5
6+
$368
$548 (bachelor)
$180
$578
$676 (1-bedroom)
$96
$627
$747 (2-bedroom)
$120
$681
$773 (3-bedroom)
$92
$734
$761
Source: Calculated by the authors, using market rent data from County of Wellington [37, 38]
Consider for example, a single mother of two children, ages 8 and 10 years. Assuming she has
no assets and child support, she could be eligible to receive an allowance of $971 per month
from OW - $344 for basic needs and $627 for shelter – before income deductions, if applicable
[35]. The average rate for a two bedroom apartment in Wellington County is $747 [36],
meaning her shelter allowance would be short by $120, which would have to come out of her
basic needs allowance. How does she manage to feed, clothe and transport her family on the
remainder of $224 per month? How does she cover necessary expenses like school supplies,
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
19
gym clothes and field trips? What extra-curricular activities is she able to offer her children,
which could help them succeed?
5.4 Lack of Affordable Rental Housing
In 2010, there were 65 affordable rental-housing units in Wellington County:
• 10 in Arthur (Rent = Market Rent)
• 55 in Fergus (Rent = 80% of Average Market Rent)
These are not affordable in the sense of being “rent geared to income” but some of these units
receive subsidies through the County of Wellington’s rent supplement program.
Most rental properties available in the region are market rent. A recent survey of market rental
housing shows that monthly rental rates range from $370 - $1,100 in Wellington County
depending on the unit size and location [39]. A unit is considered to be affordable if the
household pays less than 30% of their gross income on rent plus utilities. As illustrated in
Tables 6 and 7, the current rental rates in Wellington County are unattainable for people with
low incomes.
Table 7 – Rental Rates in comparison to Minimum Wage
Unit Size
Average Monthly Market
Monthly Household Income on
Percentage of
Rent in Wellington County
Minimum Wage
Income Spent on
(Fall 2009)
Housing
Bachelor
$548
An individual in a full-time position
36.5%
earning minimum wages of $10.25 per
1 Bedroom
$676
45.0%
hour earns approximately $1,500 in
2 Bedroom
$747
49.8%
gross income per month
3 Bedroom
$773
51.5%
Source: Calculated by the authors, using market rent data from County of Wellington [40]
5.5 Waiting Lists for Social Housing
There are a total of 516 units of permanent social housing located throughout Wellington
County (see table 9). The majority of which are designed for seniors with 1-2 bedrooms. In
addition, the County of Wellington administered a total 19 rent supplement units (12 in Fergus
and 7 in Arthur) in 2010.
Table 8 - Geographic Distribution of Social Housing Units by Municipality
Municipality
Number of Units
Minto
129
Wellington North
126
Mapleton
47
Centre Wellington
132
Erin
56
Guelph/Eramosa
26
Puslinch
0
Total Wellington County
516
Source: Wellington County, Housing Services
As of December 31, 2010, there were a total of 377 households on the waiting list for housing
in Wellington County. Many of these households are on the waiting list in more than one
20
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
municipality. As Table 9 illustrates, one-bedroom units for single adults and two or more
bedroom units for adults with dependents are in the greatest demand.
Table 9 - Centralized Waiting List by Municipality in Wellington County, December 31, 2010
Target Group
Seniors
Adults No Dependents
Adults with Dependents
Total
1 bdrm
2 bdrm
1 bdrm
2 bdrm
3 bdrm
1 bdrm
2 bdrm
3 bdrm
4+ bdrm
All
Minto
13
1
38
1
0
1
6
23
15
98
Wellington
North
30
1
72
2
1
2
28
29
15
180
Mapleton
4
0
4
1
0
0
0
1
0
10
Centre
Wellington
70
2
94
1
0
1
48
36
21
273
Erin
22
1
43
1
0
0
10
1
0
78
Guelph/
Eramosa
21
0
13
1
0
0
4
1
1
41
Unit Size
Source: County of Wellington, Housing Services
Wait times vary according to unit size and location, from two to eight years (see table 10). In
Wellington County, wait times increased for1-2 bedroom units in 2009-2010, and remained
constant for 3+ bedrooms.
Table 10 - Centralized Waiting List Average Wait Times (2007-2008) and (2009-2010) for units in
Wellington County
Unit Size
2007 - 2008
2009 - 2010
1 bedroom
3-5 years
4-5 years
2 bedroom
2 years
3 years
3 bedroom
2 years
2 years
4+ bedroom
2.5 years
2.5 years
Source: County of Wellington, Housing Services
5.6 Food
According to the local public health unit, the cost of a weekly food basket to feed a family of
four in the region was $170.73 in 2010 [41]. This cost has increased steadily every year it has
been measured.
In Wellington/Guelph, food bank usage increased 36.8% between March 2005 and March 2009
[42]. Across Canada, food bank usage has skyrocketed so much since the recession that it has
now at its highest level on record. According to a recent survey of Canadian Food Banks
(March 2010), almost 10% of users walked through the door for the first time. In Ontario, 74%
of food banks saw an increase in clientele between 2009 and 2010 [43].
Food Banks are not intended for the “absolute” homeless; clients need to report an address. As
a result, many food bank clients have jobs and own their own home. For example, in Ontario,
11% report employment income, 4% receive EI, 45% receive OW, and 23% receive ODSP [44].
In rural areas in Canada, food bank users are more likely to be working (12%) or on EI (7%). In
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
21
addition, they are more likely to be homeowners (17%). Of those that do rent, 52% pay market
rent and 16% pay subsidized rent [45].
In Wellington County, Food Pantries/Banks are located in Clifford, Drayton, Erin, Fergus,
Harriston, Mount Forest, and Palmerston. These agencies do not receive government funding.
Instead, they receive support from community food drives, grocery stores, local farmers,
donations and volunteers. As a result, the quality, content and availability of food hampers differ
widely across the region. The Centre Wellington Food Bank, for example, offers three-week
hampers and recently built a community kitchen staffed by a chef who prepares nutritionally
balanced frozen meals for their clients; while other programs are, in essence, a food cupboard
run out of a volunteer’s home.
6. UNDERSTANDING THE HOMELESS EXPERIENCE IN
WELLINGTON COUNTY
In this section, the focus shifts onto the personal experiences of those who are homeless –
What are their stories? What has helped them? How do they cope? These stories were
gathered during the extensive consultations held between October 2010 and February 2011.
They are the lived experiences of local residents and the service providers who work with
them. It is important to acknowledge that these experiences reflect individual participants’
situations, worldviews, and interpretations of government policy and regulations. At times, the
findings reveal competing viewpoints.
6.1 Why are they homeless?
Poverty was reported to be the leading cause of homelessness. This
“Poverty is at the
is significant because in stereotypes and in many urban realities,
root of the housing
mental health struggles are thought to be largely responsible for
problem” – Local
homelessness. Although these were mentioned in passing, they
service provider
appeared to be more of a symptom of homelessness and other
stresses than a direct cause. Substance abuse (e.g. prescription drugs,
street drugs and/or alcohol) was also identified as a very important trigger of homelessness,
particularly among young people, often because of the financial burdens and relational stresses
that addictions impose.
Another significant contributing factor to homelessness is
“Homelessness is not a
relational strife, including abuse and family breakdown. Many of
lifestyle people
the young people who participated in this study do not live at
choose.” – Local
home because of a history of trauma, conflict and instability
service provider
there, which leaves them vulnerable to poverty, homelessness
and many other risks. For some, leaving home is often the mature, safe choice. For many adults,
relational conflict that has led to family separation in turn often leads to poverty and precarious
housing, particularly for women.
Other less common triggers for homelessness include:
22
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
•
•
•
Eviction from shelters or social housing because of not following “house rules”.
(Hoarding by social housing tenants was raised as a related concern).
Eviction due to buildings being condemned or otherwise no longer available
“Thrill seeking” behaviour that leads young people to live in precarious situations out of
a desire for adventure and/or freedom. This motivation appears to be fairly common but
short-lived and not typical of those who are homeless for more than a few days.
People deemed at risk for homelessness also frequently exhibit common patterns of social
behaviour. Relationally, their behaviour may seem paradoxical in that they often have difficulty
getting along with other people, yet they identify their relational ties as the main reason they do
not travel to larger communities to access services. As one worker said, “People would rather
be homeless in their own community than housed and isolated elsewhere.” They often exhibit
poor coping skills (e.g. managing anger, conflict, finances, time, employment) due in part to
having been raised in dysfunctional environments. They are often people who struggle with
structure; they do not want to be part of any “system.” They come into contact with the social
service system through word of mouth and food banks, but are very unlikely to sign up for
support sessions, participate in scheduled activities or join things. Often a lack of awareness or
personal pride will cause people not to make use of the services that are available. As a result,
they find themselves homeless when there might in fact be viable housing options and other
supports available to them.
Taken together, it is not difficult to understand why a person who is experiencing any or all of
the above characteristics might find it problematic to find and maintain suitable housing. This is
particularly true when placed against the backdrop of rural conservatism, struggling economies
and limited services.
6.2 How they describe their experiences
When asked about the reasons underlying rural homelessness, one worker said, “There is
never one single generalizable story, but there is always a story.” This section highlights the
common features of the individual stories heard, to paint a picture of the cumulative challenges
that frequently result in homelessness.
Poverty is the defining feature of the precariously housed in
Wellington County. This population includes recipients of OW and
ODSP, the working poor, and others with limited, fixed and/or no
income. One implication of living in economic hardship is being
vulnerable when any unplanned expense presents itself, such as lost
wages due to illness, car repair bills, or a need to purchase supplies for children heading back to
school. They live with the chronic stress of being one pay cheque away from losing their
homes.
“I don’t know how I’ll
get through each day,
let alone a month.” –
Food bank user
The experience of poverty is clearly shaped by a person’s stage of
life. For seniors, the cost of support services to keep them living
in their homes is often prohibitive, as is the cost of assisted living
facilities. For elderly couples who find themselves needing long-
“You just can’t believe
it’s happening to you.”
– Homeless participant
23
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
term care for one person, the double cost of care plus maintaining a home is a very difficult
burden.
Poverty also intersects with family relationships in multiple and complex ways. For example, in
cases where precariously housed persons do have family members involved in supporting them,
there is a high likelihood that those relatives are struggling financially too, resulting in having
limited capacity with which to help out. For instance, one woman described having no access to
a washing machine and no money to go to a laundromat. Her mother was willing to do her
laundry, but could not afford the cost of gas to drive the clothes to and from her daughter’s
house. Another participant indicated that if she moved away, she would never see her family
because neither of them could afford the transportation to visit one another.
There is a great stigma attached to homelessness and poverty.
Homeless youth, in particular, described feeling judged by their
peers, by workers in the system, by prospective employers and by
landlords refusing to rent to them. Some are, and most are
perceived as being, involved in illegal activities. One service
provider noted that even people who live in social housing judge
people who live in social housing. As a result, this population is not considered highly
employable or desirable as tenants or legal witnesses. They are vulnerable to harassment and
exploitation. Stories of being bullied across all age groups were common.
“A 16-year old
shouldn’t live in her
own apartment.” Local service provider
6.3 Who is at highest risk?
There appear to be particular “priority populations” who are
more likely to be at risk of homelessness in Wellington County
than others. These groups are distinctive in that they require
different kinds of supports and services.
The primary group includes:
•
•
•
•
“People need to
understand that is
does happen in small
towns, and they are
our children.” – Youth
participant
Large families (with 3+ children), particularly given the
scarcity of affordable family housing units in the County
Youth, especially 16 to 18 year-olds (There is much confusion re when youth are
“kicked-off” the child welfare system, and the rules about youth accessing social
assistance).
Young and/or single parents
Individuals/families experiencing job loss and credit problems (bankruptcy)
Secondary populations who are also vulnerable include:
•
•
•
•
•
Young adults with limited job prospects who return to their home communities when
they have nowhere else to go
Those who come from families with a history of poverty and/or transience
Long-time locals with inadequate shelter (e.g. poorly heated farm houses)
Seniors
Men living on their own
24
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
Many residents fall into more than one of these population groups, putting them at a cumulative
disadvantage.
6.4 Is homelessness a significant issue in Wellington County?
As previously explained, accurate measures of rural homelessness in the County are very
difficult to obtain, and there was little consensus on the trends anecdotally. Some report that
the problem is about the same or better than it used to be. Others say that the problem has
gone underground. For example, the bridge in Fergus has been fenced off and is regularly
policed, so the issue of youth homelessness is no longer visible. And many service providers
could relay stories of individuals sleeping in cars, living in campgrounds, and couch surfing.
Overall, it appears that homelessness is a challenge, but not a priority issue in the community.
More concerning is that the triggers that lead to homelessness - poverty, substance abuse, lack
of well-paying jobs, lack of affordable and suitable rental housing – are on the rise.
6.5 What services are available to help?
There are a variety of health and social supports located in
Wellington County. These include, but are not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“People work hard to
stay local, even if the
services aren’t there.”
– Local service
provider
Addiction support groups
Community mental health services
Community outreach and housing support services
Counselling and support groups for victims of domestic
violence
Food Banks/Pantries
Information & Referral
Literacy programs
Parent and child programs
Rent & Utility Banks
Seniors programs (recreation, volunteer visiting, meals-on-wheels, etc.)
Volunteer Transportation
Youth drop-in centers
Appendix E contains a list of the programs currently receiving funding support from the County
of Wellington.
In general, the challenge is that in comparison to their urban
counterparts, Wellington-based services are limited and underresourced (in both human and financial terms). For example,
Alcoholics Anonymous offers numerous group gatherings every day
of the week in Guelph, whereas meeting locations and times are
restricted in the County. In addition, “at risk” populations, who in a
larger centre would be housed separately, get grouped together,
resulting in interpersonal conflicts and potential for exploitation. For example, there is a private
rooming house in Mount Forest that houses individuals with various issues and needs together
(i.e. developmental delays, victims of domestic violence, etc.).
“You can’t
underestimate how
much good gets
done.” – Local
service provider
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
25
Outreach services vary by agency, and are not universally available across the County. For
instance, the County of Wellington currently funds CRC’s Outreach Program and the
Emergency Rent Bank, yet there are no comparable services offered by East Wellington
Community Services (EWCS). Furthermore, some necessary services are only available in large
urban centres, and although staff do their best to serve clients over the phone and by fax, it is
often necessary for individuals to show-up in person.
Many of the organizations providing essential supports and services in rural communities are
Christian-based. Although these organizations are open to serving and working with people of
all faiths and beliefs, individuals from secular and diverse backgrounds may be reluctant to
access their programs.
6.6 What are the barriers?
Not surprisingly, because poverty and un[der]employment are at the crux of this issue, people
identify a lack of employment opportunities, particularly well-paid and full-time positions, as
being a critical barrier to improving their situation. With a job, they could afford rent and
transportation. Other related barriers include high and rising hydro rates (particularly salient
when heating poorly insulated rural farm houses), inadequate OW levels, and the requirement
to pay first and last months’ rent when moving into rented accommodation. People describe
many everyday contexts where money is just assumed to be available, such as schools, where
students are expected to pay for writing supplies, gym clothes, field trips, uniforms and
countless other expenses that are unaffordable when money is very tight.
The next most common barrier that people describe is bureaucracy,
“They say they can,
which manifests itself in various ways. They point to complicated
but it never seems to
rules, excessive paperwork and appointment-based services in other
work for us.” – Local
communities when they have no way to get there. They talk about
service provider
specific regulations that work against them, such as the need to have
an address in order to qualify for certain services such as the food
bank, or inappropriate or sporadic timing of notices and cheques arriving in the mail, or the
perception that they need to rid themselves of all assets in order to qualify for the assistance
they require. In one such example, someone recounted needing roughly $400 to fix his vehicle.
Without that money, he could not get his car running and therefore could not get to work. He
therefore lost his job and went on OW – a much more expensive and less empowering
solution than finding a way to provide him with the $400 he required to repair his car. In
another example, concern was raised that eviction notices were being sent to social housing
tenants too quickly, as a threat or motivator rather than an actual notification. Stories were
also told of abusive fathers who are not tracked by Children’s Aid, and as a result, often
remarry and reoffend.
Alongside complaints about bureaucracy came concerns with the people who work within that
bureaucracy and the lack of help navigating a way through it. There was a large discrepancy in
OW experiences among individuals who have “advocates” (service providers with wellestablished relationships) versus those who approached OW on their own or were not
prepared by their community outreach workers. This results in the perception that OW
workers are quick to return telephone calls when they come from another worker in the
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
26
system, but slow when those calls come from clients. Overall, there was a universal desire to
see OW become a more compassionate service, whereby workers would proactively make
clients aware of their options and how they can help. People did, however, describe the
positive benefit of having community outreach workers and specialized OW case workers (i.e.
addictions, youth, etc.) available to help them navigate their way. Unfortunately, the number of
these workers is not seen as adequate to meet the current need.
One of the biggest obstacles to accessing services in
“We act as if ‘the
Wellington is transportation. Rural distances, combined with a County’ is all one
lack of public and/or affordable transportation and often
thing.” - Local service
wintery road conditions, make it difficult for vulnerable
provider
people to attend appointments or get to work. When people
who may already struggle with punctuality or creative problem solving are faced with
transportation challenges, it can cause them to give up altogether. In response to this issue, a
collaborative of local community service providers established the Wellington Transportation
Services a few years ago. This volunteer driver program is managed by Community Resource
Centre and funded by the County of Wellington. Although this service is vital in helping
residents to access necessary medical, social and legal appointments and services, services, it is
not a panacea. The program is fully reliant on the recruitment and availability of volunteer
drivers. And due to liability issues, volunteer drivers are not permitted to transport youth
without a legal guardian present.
A lack of affordable housing is another obvious barrier, although it is
not experienced uniformly across Wellington County. In some
communities, vacancy rates are low. Elsewhere, availability is less of a
problem than affordability. Where affordable units are available, they
may not be well maintained or safe, and/or landlords may not be
willing to rent them. In the case of social housing units, family units
are in short supply. Waiting times for other units can be very long,
particularly closer to Guelph.
“Housing is more of
a problem in
Wellington County
than most people
think.” – Local
service provider
Interestingly, a lack of formal services (such as shelters or drop-in centres) was not often
mentioned as a barrier, particularly not by the homeless themselves. This may be reflective of
that population’s reluctance to make use of services, and/or of their expectations that rural
places are generally underserved. As one rural worker noted, there are supports available in
small communities, but they are individual rather than organized.
6.6 How do people cope?
Given the long list of barriers faced by the homeless in Wellington County, how do they cope?
When it takes three to five years to move into a social housing unit, what do people do in the
meantime?
In general, homeless people are extremely resourceful. They use informal, creative strategies to
solve problems and meet basic needs. In terms of finding shelter, the main theme is transience.
People are on the move a lot, and typically stay in substandard conditions. The three coping
strategies most often used include:
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
27
a. Couch surfing with friends, acquaintances or occasionally with family. This was the most
common strategy, but not the most stable, safe or geared to their needs. Examples were
relayed of young people, both male and female, being taken advantage of, financially
and/or sexually by adults in exchange for providing them with a place to sleep. As one
provider noted, “Drug dealers love kids that are lost.” Even in safer situations, such as in
friends’ homes, couch surfing results in multiple moves.
b. Using existing uninhabited shelters such as sheds, sold or unfinished houses, barns,
unheated trailers, cars or tents. Local residents describe being
aware of people in their towns who are living in these
“Homelessness is
cold, and a good way
precarious conditions. Sometimes they are offered an out
to lose weight.” –
building to use while the homeowner ‘’looks the other way.’’
Youth participant
Nevertheless, the illegality of this activity makes it particularly
precarious, and severe weather conditions can make many of
these living situations unsafe.
c. Returning home. Many examples were cited of people returning to their family home
because they simply had nowhere else to turn. In some cases, this is a step toward
repairing broken relationships. But for many, it is an unsafe or unhealthy choice,
particularly in cases of domestic violence and abuse.
Those with housing struggle with which bills to pay each month because not all basic needs can
be covered with the funds available. This choice is usually made
“People who come to
based on which creditor is complaining the loudest at any given
us are not homeless.
time. When they have access to credit, people are accumulating
They are paying a lot
significant debt. Regardless of the coping strategy, there is a strong
of money for rent they
preference for staying local and “making do”, contradicting the
can’t afford.” – Local
research cited in section 3 about rural people relocating to large
service provider
cities [46].
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
28
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
The previous sections illustrate that the triggers that lead to homelessness - poverty, substance
abuse, lack of well-paying jobs, lack of affordable and suitable rental housing – are on the rise in
Wellington County. This section contains a number of recommendations under four headings
for consideration by the County of Wellington. These recommendations are meant to initiate
discussion as potential ways to help address service barriers and gaps, as well as improve the
experiences of those who find themselves in homeless situations.
1. Improve services to Wellington County, by offering more local “homeless and
eviction prevention” services in rural areas
Throughout this report, it has been reported that rural residents prefer to stay local
due to relationships and familiarity, and are reluctant to access necessary services in
urban centres. Instead, people prefer to couch surf, stay in uninhabited shelters (e.g.
sheds, cars, tents), or return to their family homes and what are often unsafe conditions.
In addition, transportation has repeatedly been cited as one of the biggest obstacles to
accessing services. Travel time and distances, combined with a lack of public
transportation and winter road conditions, make it extremely difficult for individuals to
attend appointments, food shop, and go to the laundromat. The solution, therefore, is
to offer more local services. For example:
a. In order to access social assistance, clients are required to attend appointments inperson at the County of Wellington’s administration office in Guelph. This causes
undue hardship for many clients. It is recommended that the County of Wellington
establish satellite Employment and Income Support services, whereby OW workers
spend at least one day a week in various locations throughout East, Centre and
North Wellington.
b. The programs funded through the County of Wellington’s CHPP program –
volunteer transportation, emergency rent bank, and community outreach workers –
are extremely vital. In rural areas, outreach workers carry large caseloads and, due
to travel times and distances, are limited in how much intensive case management
services they are able to provide each client. Nevertheless, the services provided are
essential in preventing and alleviating homelessness. It is therefore recommended
that the Emergency Rent Bank and Outreach Worker Programs be expanded and
enhanced, to be more equitable across the region.
c. The Guelph Community Health Centre’s ID clinic, which is also funded through the
County of Wellington’s CHPP program, offers flexible services for rural clients (i.e.
phone appointments, faxing paperwork, etc.). However, in many instances, clients
are required to travel to the Guelph office for signatures. It is recommended that
the ID Clinic explore the feasibility of offering services in Wellington County once a
month or more frequently.
d. Across North America, numerous non-profit and governmental organizations are
investing in shared office spaces to promote healthy and vibrant communities. The
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
29
benefits of shared spaces are numerous, and include economic, networking and
collaboration, and safety reasons. An added advantage is that in a small community
shared spaces support privacy and confidentiality (i.e. no one knows why someone is
going there – are they going to the food bank, to the library, to the child care
centre, for counselling, etc.?). At present, a number of local service providers,
including the County of Wellington, have office spaces in local towns. It is
recommended that the County of Wellington explore establishing shared
community spaces throughout Wellington County.
2. Promote practices that make the Employment & Income Support Program more
user-friendly and welcoming
It goes without saying that the current funding levels for social assistance are inadequate
to cover basic living costs (e.g. food, housing, clothing and transportation) in Ontario.
The County of Wellington and the Guelph & Wellington Task Force for Poverty
Elimination therefore have an important role to play in advocating funding and legislative
changes to the provincial and federal governments that would improve the effectiveness
of the system (i.e. implementing the recommendations of the recent Senate Report, In
from the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness) [47]. In the
meantime, there are a number of activities the County of Wellington could undertake
to make Employment & Income Support services more user-friendly and welcoming on
a local basis.
SAIL is a human services approach that has recently being adopted by the County of
Wellington, whereby staff is trained in the necessary knowledge, skills, and supportive
behaviours to work effectively with clients, colleagues and communities. This is an
excellent first step. Moving forward will require a continual focus on practices. For
example:
a. The advent of information technology has changed the way people access
information. Many service providers and local residents are extremely techno savvy.
Youth, even homeless youth, use social media sites like Facebook to share
information (e.g. where to find a couch for the night). It is recommended that the
County of Wellington improve its on-line presence, making its website more
interactive (e.g. offer on-line applications, videos, and easy-to-access information
about client rights and responsibilities, eligibility criteria, the appeal process, and
financial benefits). For example, see the Region of Waterloo’s movie
(http://video.region.waterloo.on.ca/ontarioworks/ontarioworks-small.mov) and the
City of Toronto’s website which includes an on-line application and social assistance
rates (http://www.toronto.ca/socialservices/).
b. Employment and Income Support programs are provincially legislated, however, the
interpretation and application of these directives at the municipal level differ slightly
across the province. It is recommended that the County of Wellington review its
policies and procedures, and where possible, revise them to be more clientcentered. This review should include clarifying (and if possible expanding) the
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
30
process for accessing discretionary benefits, as well as pro-actively giving out
information about what is possible and/or available.
c. Local service providers who are well informed about OW make excellent system
advocates. It is recommended that the County of Wellington educate and work in
collaboration with local service providers (e.g. CRC, EWCS, WIC’s Rural Women’s
Support Program, etc.) to ensure they have the necessary knowledge, information
and tools to help their clients succeed.
d. The specialty case management positions (i.e. youth, addictions) are well regarded in
the community. It is recommended that the County of Wellington explore
expanding these positions.
e. As suggested (in 1a.) above, it is recommended that the County of Wellington
provide OW services in satellite locations throughout North, Centre and East
Wellington. Not only will this improve service access, but it will also advance
customer relations.
3. Provide youth with safe shelter alternatives, as well as opportunities to play and
learn life skills
Given the recent news events regarding homeless
“Although Wyndham
youth in Fergus, addiction issues, inaccessibility of
House is amazing, these
youth shelters, and limited recreation and
kids do not want to wake
employment opportunities, rural youth are viewed
up in Guelph.” – Local
as a priority population. The good news is that there
service provider
is momentum among local educators and service
providers to address these issues.
a. Low population levels and the large geographic area of Wellington County means
that it is not financially sustainable to open a traditional youth shelter here. An
alternative solution is to establish a “Host Home Program” like the one offered by
Bridging the Gap Halton. This program provides a home-based alternative to
emergency shelters, and assists youth in achieving their personal goals while
maintaining a connection to their community. Host Homes are available to youth,
ages 16-24, for up to four months. Host Homes offer a private/separate sleeping
area, with access to laundry and washroom facilities, and provide youth with
breakfast and supper, in return for a small per diem reimbursement. Youth are prescreened for addiction or mental health problems, and must agree to abide by
curfews and house rules set by the host provider. It is recommended that the
County of Wellington work in collaboration with local service providers, like
Wyndham House and Family & Children’s Services, to explore the feasibility of
setting up a “Bridging the Gap” program in Wellington County. For more details,
see www.bridgingthegaphalton.ca.
b. There is a need to provide a fun, safe and inclusive environment for all youth in
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
31
Wellington County that offers a myriad of opportunities, ranging from arts and
culture, to fitness and recreation, to employment and life skills through social
enterprise ventures. Examples of best practices in Ontario include the Fusion Youth
Activity and Technology Centre in Ingersoll, Youth Opportunities Unlimited in
London, and Peel Youth Village in Mississauga. It is recommended that the County of
Wellington, in collaboration with the Wellington Youth Service Providers, explore
the feasibility of establishing Fusion-type centres to be located near the local high
schools in Wellington County. For more details, see www.fusionyouthcentre.ca.
4. Adopt a Housing First Policy
The effects of the recent recession are far from over. Many individuals and households are
struggling to survive on little income, whether it is social assistance or low paying jobs.
Finding and maintaining satisfactory and affordable housing is a key concern, as it is the
largest expenditure for the majority of households.
“Homelessness may not only be a housing problem, but it is always a housing
problem. And you can’t deal with whatever other problems a person is facing
until they are in stable, appropriate housing.” [48]
“Housing First” is a concept that recognizes that an individual/family’s primary need is to
obtain a roof over their heads, and that other issues that may affect the household (e.g.
food security, education, employment, etc.) cannot be addressed until stable housing is
obtained. It is recommended that the County of Wellington adopt a Housing First Policy.
As is the case with social assistance, much of the funding and legislative changes required to
improve the availability of affordable and social housing are beyond the purview of the
County of Wellington. Nevertheless, the County of Wellington could play an important
advocacy role. For example:
•
•
•
•
Encouraging the development of transitional and supportive housing units in
Wellington County.
Promoting the need to make homelessness a priority status on the Centralized
Waiting List for Social Housing.
Supporting the development of more social housing units in Wellington County,
especially units for families with 3+ children.
In the absence of family units, allowing families to be “under-housed” on an interim
basis (i.e. a family of five sharing a 2-bedroom unit), rather than forcing them to go
to an emergency shelter or take inappropriate accommodations in the private
market.
When funding does come available to build new affordable and/or social housing units, it is
important that the County of Wellington work in collaboration with local organizations
whose services may be impacted by the new tenants (e.g. food banks).
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
32
8. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this report has synthesized large amounts of existing data and combined it with
the lived experiences of precariously housed individuals and the service providers who work
with them, to paint a picture of homelessness in Wellington County. It is a canvas marked with
poverty, addiction, family breakdown and mental illness. Yet it is also characterized by
resourcefulness, and a strong commitment to home and to place, even by those deemed not to
have a home.
The causes of homelessness and the actions required to address it are multiple and complex.
Jurisdictional issues related to implementing possible solutions are complicated. Yet policy
decision makers cannot allow complexity to paralyze them into inaction. The recommendations
outlined here provide the County of Wellington with an opportunity to make a difference in
addressing not only homelessness, but also the social inequities that underlie it.
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
33
APPENDIX A - WORKS CITED
1. Statistics Canada (1996). Appendix A: History of Changes to the Definition of “Urban Area”
and “Rural Area”. Electronic Document http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-601m/2002061/4193597-eng.pdf. Accessed October 7, 2010.
2. United States Government Accountability Office (2010). Rural Homelessness – Better
Collaboration by HHS and HUD Could Improve Delivery of Service in Rural Areas.
3. Statistics Canada (2007). Guelph, Ontario and Wellington, Ontario. 2006 Community Profiles.
2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa.
Released March 13, 2007. Available at http://www12.statcan.ca/censusrecensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed February 9, 2011.
4. Statistics Canada (1996). Appendix A: History of Changes to the Definition of “Urban Area”
and “Rural Area”. Electronic Document http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-601m/2002061/4193597-eng.pdf. Accessed October 7, 2010.
5. Cloke, P., P. Milbourne and R. Widdowfield (2000). Homelessness and rurality: ‘out-ofplace’ in purified space? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18: 715-735.
6. Beer, A. A. Maude, and P. Pritchard (2003). Developing Australia’s Regions: Theory and
Practice. Kensington, Australia: UNSW Press.
7. Echenberg, H. & Jensen, H. (2008). Defining and enumerating homelessness in Canada.
Ottawa: Library of Parliament (PRB 08-30E).
8. Ibid
9. Cloke, P., P. Milbourne and R. Widdowfield (2000). Homelessness and rurality: ‘out-ofplace’ in purified space? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18: 715-735.
10. Raising the Roof (2009). Youth Homelessness in Canada: The Road to Solutions. Electronic
Document, http://www.raisingtheroof.org/RoadtoSolutions_fullrept_english.pdf. Accessed
October 10, 2010.
11. National Alliance to End Homelessness (2010). Fact Sheet: Rural Homelessness. Electronic
document, http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/Rural.pdf. Accessed October
7, 2010.
12. Robertson, M., Natalie, H., Fritz, N., Noftsinger, R., & Fischer, P. (2007). Rural
Homelessness. In Toward Understanding Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on
Homelessness Research. Deborah Dennis, Gretchen Locke, and Jill Khadduri (eds.).
Electronic Document, http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/homeless/p8.html.
Accessed October 3, 2010.
13. United States Government Accountability Office (2010). Rural Homelessness – Better
Collaboration by HHS and HUD Could Improve Delivery of Service in Rural Areas.
14. National Coalition for the Homeless (2007). Rural Homelessness – NCH Fact Sheet #11.
Electronic Document, http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/Rural.pdf.
Accessed October 7, 2010.
15. Thrane, L., D. Hoyt, L. Whitbeck, and K. Yoder (2006). Impact of family abuse on running
away, deviance, and street victimization among homeless rural and urban youth. Child
Abuse and Neglect 30: 1117-1128.
16. Cloke, P., P. Milbourne and R. Widdowfield (2000). Homelessness and rurality: ‘out-ofplace’ in purified space? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18: 715-735.
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
34
17. Canadian Mental Health Association (2005). A House in the Country. Network Magazine,
Spring/Summer 2005. Electronic Document,
http://www.ontario.cmha.ca/network_story.asp?cID=5761. Accessed October 15, 2010.
18. Robertson, M., Natalie, H., Fritz, N., Noftsinger, R., & Fischer, P. (2007). Rural
Homelessness. In Toward Understanding Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on
Homelessness Research. Deborah Dennis, Gretchen Locke, and Jill Khadduri (eds.).
Electronic Document, http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/homeless/p8.html.
Accessed October 3, 2010.
19. Keating, N. (ed.) (2008). Rural ageing: A good place to grow old? Bristol, England: The
Policy Press, University of Bristol.
20. Turner, S. (2010). Highlighting Rural Homelessness and Housing Issues: An Interview with
Melissa Jameson. Canadian Social Housing Observer. Electronic document,
http://www.housingobserver.com/search?q=interview+with+melissa+jameson. Accessed
January 28, 2010.
21. Farrjn, J. (2003). Has the Bough Broken? Paper presented to the National Housing
Conference, November 2003, Adelaide. (Unpublished).
22. Thrane, L., D. Hoyt, L. Whitbeck, and K. Yoder (2006). Impact of family abuse on running
away, deviance, and street victimization among homeless rural and urban youth. Child
Abuse and Neglect 30: 1117-1128.
23. Beer, A., P. Delfabbro, S. Oakley, F. Verity, K. Natalier, J. Packer and A. Bass (2005).
Developing models of good practice in meeting the needs of homeless young people in rural
areas. AHURI Final Report No. 83. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
24. Burt, M. R. (1996). Rural homelessness: Focusing on the needs of the rural homeless: What
we've learned, what we need to do next. A report on the findings and implications of
RECD's rural homelessness conferences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Rural Economic and Community Development.
25. Turner, S. (2010). Highlighting Rural Homelessness and Housing Issues: An Interview with
Melissa Jameson. Canadian Social Housing Observer. Electronic document,
http://www.housingobserver.com/search?q=interview+with+melissa+jameson. Accessed
January 28, 2010.
26. Reimer, B. & Apedaile, P. (2000). The New Rural Economy in Canada. Prepared for the
Canadian Employment Research Forum. The Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation.
Concordia University, Montreal.
27. Bollman, R., R. Beshiri, and H. Clemenson (Statistics Canada, 2007). Immigrants in Rural
Canada. Section 2: The Rural Context of Immigration. Metropolis Magazine, Summer 2007
(3): 9-15. Electronic Document,
http://canada.metropolis.net/pdfs/ODC_Summer07_3_en.pdf. Accessed November 8,
2010.
28. Milbourne, P., R. Hughes and S. Hartwell (2006). Homelessness in Rural Wales. Research
Report No. 9. Arsyllfa Wledig Cymru (Wales Rural Observatory). Cardiff, United Kingdom.
29. Beer, A. A. Maude, and P. Pritchard (2003). Developing Australia’s Regions: Theory and
Practice. Kensington, Australia: UNSW Press.
30. Yardy, W. and W. Thompson (2003). Housing Drought in Central Queensland. Parity 16(2):
27.
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
35
31. Elias, B. M. (2009). Without Intention: Rural Reponses to Uncovering the Hidden Aspects of
Homelessness in Ontario 2000 to 2007. Department of Adult Education and Counselling
Psychology. University of Toronto, Toronto.
32. Young, S. (2007). Psychotherapists working with homeless clients: The experience of stress,
burnout symptoms, and coping. Faculty of Antioch, University of Seattle. Seattle,
Washington.
33. Guelph Community Foundation (2008). Guelph & Wellington’s Vital Signs 2008. Available at
http://www.guelphcf.ca/uploads/Vital%20Signs/GWVS%20Report%20Final.pdf.
34. United Way of Guelph & Wellington (2010). Social Planning Fact Sheet. Released August
2010.
35. City of Toronto (2011). Employment & Social Services, Benefits & Supports. Available at
http://www.toronto.ca/socialservices/foodrent.htm#a. Accessed February 26, 2011.
36. County of Wellington, Housing Department (2009). Rent ranges and average market rents
were determined by a market rent survey that was completed by Housing Services staff in
the summer of 2009 in collaboration with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The
survey was based on 549 units of occupied private apartment dwellings of 3 or more units.
This represents approximately 12% of total occupied rental dwellings in Wellington County.
37. City of Toronto (2011). Employment & Social Services, Benefits & Supports. Available at
http://www.toronto.ca/socialservices/foodrent.htm#a. Accessed February 26, 2011.
38. County of Wellington, Housing Department (2009). Rent ranges and average market rents
were determined by a market rent survey that was completed by Housing Services staff in
the summer of 2009 in collaboration with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The
survey was based on 549 units of occupied private apartment dwellings of 3 or more units.
This represents approximately 12% of total occupied rental dwellings in Wellington County.
39. Ibid
40. Ibid
41. Wellington Dufferin Guelph Public Health (2011). The Cost of Eating Well in WellingtonDufferin-Guelph. Electronic document, http://www.wdghu.org/page.cfm?id=2192. Accessed
March 7, 2011.
42. United Way of Guelph & Wellington (2010). Social Planning Fact Sheet. Released August
2010.
43. Food Banks Canada (2010). Hunger Count 2010. Electronic document,
http://www.foodbankscanada.ca/documents/HungerCount2010_web.pdf. Accessed February
14, 2011.
44. Ibid
45. Ibid
46. Canadian Mental Health Association (2005). A House in the Country. Network Magazine,
Spring/Summer 2005. Electronic Document,
http://www.ontario.cmha.ca/network_story.asp?cID=5761. Accessed October 15, 2010.
47. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (2009). In from
the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness. Electronic document,
http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/citi-e/rep-e/rep02dec09-e.pdf.
Accessed February 23, 2011.
48. City of Toronto (1999). Taking Responsibility for Homelessness: An Action Plan for
Toronto. Report of the Mayor’s Homelessness Action Task Force. Electronic document,
http://www.toronto.ca/pdf/homeless_action.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2011.
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
36
APPENDIX B – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research process for this project was three-fold. It involved:
1. Consultations with individuals who are (or have been) homeless or who are at risk
of becoming homeless, as well as local service providers.
2. Review of relevant literature
3. Statistical analysis of existing program and socio-economic data related to
homelessness in Wellington County
The following is a description of the research process and questions posed. The activities
themselves were carried out concurrently.
1. Focus Groups & Key Informant Interviews
Seventy-eight individuals participated in a variety focus groups and key informant interviews,
consisting of 49 service providers (representing 34 organizations) and 29 service users. The
participants came from a range of backgrounds, age groups and service sectors. For details,
please refer to Appendix B.
All told, 42 interviews were conducted (26 in person and 16 by telephone). And five focus
groups were held at existing gatherings:
•
•
•
•
•
October 25, 2010 - North Wellington Food Banks/Pantries, Mount Forest
November 10, 2010 - CRC’s Young Parent’s Group, Fergus
November 17, 2010 - The Door’s Peer-to-Lead Youth Group, Fergus
November 18, 2010 - Wellington & Guelph Housing Committee, Guelph
November 24, 2010 - Wellington Youth Services Providers, Fergus
Local service providers assisted by providing introductions to community members, who had
experiences with homelessness. In one instance, an interview was conducted by EWCS on the
authors’ behalf. In addition, five members of The Door’s Peer-to-Lead Program (Fergus
chapter) received interview training by Rebecca Sutherns, a member of the research team.
They, in turn, identified youth participants and conducted interviews, reaching a total of 16
youth.
The discussion questions were adjusted according to the audience and time allotment of each
consultation, but in general, the following was asked:
Questions for the Homeless
1. Please share your story of how you have experienced homelessness.
2. If you had to pick 3 words to describe your experience, what would they be?
3. What helped you most? What didn’t help?
4. What (formal and informal) supports and services did you access? Were/are you
aware of others?
5. What would have made those supports and services more helpful? What new ones
should exist?
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
37
Questions for Service Providers
1. What are the triggers for homelessness in Wellington County?
2. To what extent, is homelessness a salient issue in Wellington County?
3. What options are currently available to homeless or at-risk households in
Wellington County?
4. What is the reach of your organization in this area? To what extent are Wellington
County residents accessing your services (for Guelph providers)?
5. From your perspective, what are the top 3 emerging issues/needs re: rural
homelessness? Which population groups are most at risk in Wellington County?
6. What needs to happen over the next 3 years to strengthen services for rural
residents?
2. Literature Review
The purpose of the literature review was to gather existing research, information, and
knowledge relating to rural homelessness, both within Canada and abroad. The following
research questions were used to inform this report:
1. What is the accepted definition of “homeless”, and what are the challenges are
involved in measuring it?
2. How does the rural context differentiate the experience of rural homelessness from
urban homelessness?
3. What are some recent best practices and policy initiatives developed for addressing
rural homelessness?
The reference sources came from primarily from literature published since 2006, accessed using
a variety of academic databases, as well as selected resources referred to the authors by
colleagues working in the field of housing and homelessness.
3. Statistical Analysis
A variety of program and socio-economic data related to homelessness in Wellington County
was collected and analyzed. Sources of this data included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
County of Wellington
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC)
Food Banks Canada
Guelph Community Foundation
Guelph-Wellington Women In Crisis
Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association (ONPHA)
Statistics Canada
United Way of Guelph & Wellington
Waterloo-Wellington LHIN
An email query was sent to other municipalities in Ontario to determine if they track data on
“Wellington” shelter users. This poll revealed that many communities in Ontario not yet using
Homeless Individuals and Families Information System (HIFIS). Only two communities (Peel and
Sudbury) track shelter users by municipality. Most just capture “other”, like the County of
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
Wellington does. No Wellington residents were reported to have used shelters in other
regions in Ontario in 2009.
38
39
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
APPENDIX C – PARTICIPANTS
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the individuals and organizations that provided information and
statistics or in any way helped in creating this report. We are extremely grateful to the 77
individuals listed below who participated in focus group meetings and/or individual interviews.
A special thanks goes to The Door’s Kevin Coghill and the members of the Peer-to-Lead
program who, with a little training, conducted interviews with 16 “at risk” youth on our behalf.
Service Providers
Organization
1.
Chance Employment
2. AIDS Committee
Participant
Michelle Huestis
Gary Roche
3. Centre Wellington Food
Fred Aleksandrowiz
X
4. Centre Wellington
Doug Sherwood
X
5. CMHA
6. CMHA
7. Community Pantry,
Kim Ackerman
Debbie Fazari
Marg Rapp
Rural Support Worker
8. Community Resource
Naomi Melnick
Manager, Outreach &
Support Services
X
X
9. Community Resource
Frances Livingstone
Youth/Outreach Worker
X
X
10. Community Torchlight
Elizabeth Pease
11. County of Wellington
Heather Burke
Director, Housing
X
12. County of Wellington
Diane Laur
Manager, Housing
X
13. County of Wellington
Sheila Cramner-Byng
Manager, Housing
X
14. The Door Youth Drop
Kevin Coghill
Director
15. East Wellington
Gillian Riseborough
Manager, Community
Supports & Volunteers
Past President
2nd
Position
Housing Support
Coordinator
FG
X
X
KII
Bank
Hydro
X
X
X
Mount Forest
Centre
Centre
X
(Distress Centre)
X
X
In Centre
Community Services
16. East Wellington
Community Services
17. Family & Children’s
Services
18. Family & Children’s
Services
David Robart-Morgan
Amanda Bayer
Mary Lou Fretz
X
X
X
X
40
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Organization
Guelph Community
Health Centre
Guelph-Wellington
Women In Crisis
Guelph-Wellington
Women In Crisis
Harriston Food Bank
Homewood Community
Addiction
John Howard Society
Legal Clinic of Guelph &
Wellington County
Lutherwood
Michael House
Participant
Trish Miller
Jacinta Gillen
Christine Wilson
Position
Community Health Outreach
Worker, ID Clinic
Manager, Rural Women’s
Support Program
Manager, Marianne’s Place
FG
KII
X
X
X
X
Bev May
Tamara McCurty
X
X
Jennifer Cochrane
Kristen Thompson
X
X
Ray Hollinger
Amy Wilson
28. Palmerston Food Bank
29. Palmerston Food Bank
30. Ramoth House
31. Royal City Evangelical
Barbara Burrows
Margaret Todd
Priscilla Cochrane
Paul George
32. Seniors Centre of
Helen Edwards
33.
Paul Young
Youth Contact
Program Manager/Intake
Worker
X
X
X
X
Director
X
X
Missionary Church
34.
35.
36.
Excellence
Trellis Mental Health &
Developmental Services
United Way of Guelph &
Wellington
United Way of Guelph &
Wellington
Upper Grand District
School Board
X
X
Sarah Haanstra
Director, Social Planning
Bethany Wagler-Mantle
Social Planner, Poverty
Coalition
Child & Youth Counsellor,
Centre Wellington District
High School
Social Worker/Attendance
Counsellor, Wellington
Heights Secondary School
Coordinator, Volunteer
Visiting
Audrey Morrison
X
X
X
37. Upper Grand District
Laura May Culver
38. Victorian Order of
Sharon O’Sullivan
39. Welcome In Drop In
Sister Christine Leyser
40.
Alberta
Stepping Stone
Diane Fountain
Youth Worker
Elizabeth DeBergh
Executive Director
X
Debbie Veldhuizen
Nurse
X
School Board
Nurses
41.
42.
43.
Centre
Welcome In Drop In
Centre
Wellington Catholic
District School Board
Wellington County
Learning Centre
Wellington Dufferin
Guelph Health Unit
X
X
X
X
X
X
41
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
Organization
Wellington Dufferin
Guelph Health Unit
Wellington Dufferin
Guelph Public Health
WWCFDC & CW
Connection
WWCFDC & CW
Connection
Wyndham House
Wyndham House
Participant
Nancy Thurston
Nurse
Position
Dawn MacRae Stevens
Public Health Nurse
FG
X
Jane Shaw
X
Jana Reichert
X
Debbie Bentley-Lauzon
Leisha Burley
Executive Director
Program Manager
Community Members (29)
Members of the Door’s Peer to Lead Group (5 youth, ages 15-18 years)
Amanda (female, 17)
Anonymous
Anonymous (female, 22)
Becky (female, 14)
Bobby (female, 16)
Caleb (male, 15)
Catherine and Jaren (parents, 1 child, mid-20s)
Dakota (male, 16)
Dave (male, divorced, father of 3 kids, mid-40s)
DJ (male, 15)
Hannah (female, 15)
Jaime (female, 15)
John (male, married, mid-30s)
Josh (male, 17)
Kelly (female, 21)
Logan (male, 16)
Melissa (female, single mother, 1 child, mid-20s)
Pat (female, married, 62)
Sam (female, single mother, 1 child, mid-20s)
Sam (male, 16)
Shalyn (female, 15)
Tanya (female, single mother of 3 kids, 37)
Timmy (male, 17)
KII
X
X
X
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
42
APPENDIX D – PROFILE OF WELLINGTON SHELTER USERS
This analysis is based on a review of monthly Homeless Individuals and Families Information
System (HIFIS) statistics for the period of 2009-2010. The adult emergency shelters include:
Stepping Stone and Elizabeth Place, plus overflow beds at local motels. The youth emergency
shelter is operated by Wyndham House.
“Wellington County” clients are those that report a prior address in Wellington County during
the 12 months prior to admission to a shelter, and are identified as such by the Shelter Intake
Workers. Data was gathered from their intake forms with all identifying data removed.
In reviewing the HIFIS statistics, the following caveats should be noted:
•
•
•
•
Adult shelter users also include dependents (spouses/partners and children).
The forms are completed by the Shelter Intake Workers, based on information
reported by the clients. As a result, some of the fields were incomplete.
The Intake form was revised in October 2009.
As of April 2010, the County of Wellington revised how it counts clients. Previous to
that time, they tracked “applicants” (i.e. if John Doe visited the shelter three times in
one month - he was only counted once. Also, his dependents were not counted
separately). From April 2010 on, the reporting method was changed to match the billing
data (i.e. If Jane Smith has two children and they stay at the shelter twice in a month,
they would be counted as six clients.)
Monthly Trends
A total of 72 households/individuals (including 20 dependents) from Wellington County visited
the emergency shelters located in Guelph in 2009-2010 – 54 to the adult shelters and 20 to the
youth shelter. (This does not include users of the women’s shelter.) Some of these individuals
stayed multiple times (see length of stay data below).
The following graphs show the total number of emergency shelter users by month by origin, for
both the adult and youth shelters (Due to the change in data collection method noted above,
the graphs are separated into two time periods – pre/post April 2010). Surprisingly, usage in the
summer is not markedly lower than in the winter months.
43
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
Table A1 -­‐ Monthly Visitors to Emergency Shelters Located in Guelph by Origin, January 2009 -­‐ March 2010 120 100 80 Wellington 60 Guelph 40 Other NFA 20 0 Jan. Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan. Feb Mar 09 10 Source: Calculated by authors
Table A2 -­‐ Monthly Visitors to Emergency Shelters Located in Guelph by Origin, April -­‐ December 2010 200 180 160 140 120 Wellington 100 Guelph 80 Other 60 NFA 40 20 0 Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Source: Calculated by authors
Profile of Wellington Shelter Users
Eighty percent of the Wellington residents who stayed at the emergency shelters were male,
not including dependents (for both the youth and adult shelters). The following tables display
the age distribution at intake of those visiting shelters in 2009 and 2010. Please note that these
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
44
numbers are for heads of household only (i.e. if an individual stayed more than once, he/she was
only counted once in the profile analysis).
Table A3 - Age of Youth Shelter Users from Wellington County, 2009-2010
Age
2009
2010
17
1
2
18
1
5
19
1
2
20
0
3
21
1
2
Total
4
14
Source: Calculated by authors
Table A4 - Age of Adult Shelter Users from Wellington County, 2009-2010 (not including
dependents)
Age
2009
2010
<20
0
1
21-25
4
4
26-35
6
5
36-50
0
12
51-64
16
6
>65
0
0
Total
26
28
Source: Calculated by authors
Of the 54 households/individuals (including 20 dependents) from Wellington County who
visited the adult HIFIS shelters in 2009-2010:
• 35 were single
• 4 were female single parents (children accompanying)
• 2 were male single parents (children accompanying)
• 3 were two parent families with children
• 8 were couples without children with them
• 1 was widowed
Of the 20 dependents who accompanied their parents to adult shelters:
• 9 were under 5
• 6 were 5-9
• 2 were 10-14
• 3 were 15 or older; the oldest was 16
Length of Stay
Many of those from the county visiting shelters during 2009-2010 stayed only once (43% of
adults and 60% of youth). A further 27% of youth and 44% of adults stayed 2 or 3 times. The
proportion staying more than 3 times was 6%. The average length of stay for youth was 4.3
days; for adults the average was 10.9 days. There was a wide range in the length of stay around
this average; the longest stay at one time for a youth was 30 days and 31 for an adult. Stays of
more than 2 weeks represented 32% of adult visits and 8.6% of youth visits.
45
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
Reasons for Needing a Shelter Bed
The following table lists the reasons Wellington County residents gave for requiring a shelter
bed during their intake interviews. For youth, almost half needed shelter because of family
conflict. Eviction was the second most frequently cited reason for youth, and the most common
reason for adult shelter users. For both groups, this was sometimes eviction by a family
member, which is a further indication of family conflict. Nearly eight percent of youth indicated
they were entering a treatment program, yet no adults reported entering treatment as a reason
for shelter use. (Since this is self-reported information, addictions and mental health problems
may be underreported). Job loss and lack of income were cited by 19.4% of Wellington County
residents as a reason for accessing the adult shelters.
Please note that these numbers are for heads of household only (i.e. if an individual stayed more
than once, he/she was only counted once in the profile analysis). In addition, as these reasons
are self-reported, it is most likely that mental health and addictions issues are underestimated.
Table A5 – Self-reported Reasons for Wellington Residents Needing a Shelter Bed, 2009-2010
Reason Given
Percentage Citing This Reason
Family Conflict/Breakdown
Eviction (by landlord or family member)
Family abuse
Stranded/temporary
Unsafe Housing
Entering a Treatment Program
Released from Jail
Lack of income/Income drop/Job loss
Mental Health/Illness/Breakdown
Temporary
Adult Shelters
19.4%
25.8%
3.2%
19.4%
Youth Shelter
46.2%
23.1%
7.7%
15.4%
7.7%
3.4%
19.4%
9.7%
3.2%
Source: Calculated by authors
46
Rural Homelessness Study (September 2011)
APPENDIX E – HOMELESS & EVICTION PREVENTION PROGRAMS
FUNDED BY THE COUNTY OF WELLINGTON, 2010
Organization
Community Resource
Centre (CRC)
www.communityresourcecentre.org
Guelph Community
Health Centre
Programs supported by
County of Wellington7
• Outreach & Housing
Support Services
• Rent Bank
• Volunteer Transportation
www.michaelhouse.ca
Ramoth House
www.ramoth.ca
Welcome In Drop In
Centre
www.ibvm.ca/works/justice/welcomedrop-in
Wyndham House
www.wyndhamhouse.org
7
All ages
Location
Administrative
office is in
Fergus, plus 2
outreach
workers
Guelph
• ID Clinic
Adults (18+)
• Shelter
Young pregnant Guelph
women and
infants (up to 1
year)
Young pregnant Mount Forest
women and
infants (up to 1
year)
Adults plus
Guelph
dependants
www.guelphchc.ca
Michael House
Age Group
• Shelter
• Stepping Stone
(emergency shelter for
men)
• Elizabeth Place
(emergency shelter for
women)
• Parkview Motel (overflow
beds)
• Wayfare Motel (overflow
beds)
• Youth Emergency Shelter
• Long Term Residential
Programs
16-21 years
Guelph
Many of these organizations offer other programs. The services listed here are only those that received funding
from the County of Wellington’s Homeless & Eviction Prevention Programs in 2010.